Measles Is Good For You!

Before I get on to showing you how measles is good for you, I’d like to examine various aspects of this latest scare show.

It’s been commented on before that some of the posts on this blog are quite long. This post is no different. The reason for that is the purpose of the blog itself, which isn’t just to share my thoughts or opinions on an issue, but to provide a wide spectrum of relevant and balanced information. That said, most of the most important data herein is in the form of links to external sources of information.

I’ve come to it a little late and The Measles Scare is in full swing. The media are keeping people poised with up to date information about the epidemic. A national immunisation catch-up program is running smoothly. If we’re careful and do as we’re told, we may avoid a catastrophe.

We’re not out of the woods yet though. The Independent recently predicted that a ‘very large outbreak’ of measles could hit London.’

Some vectors identified as virus-carrying have been ‘subsections’ of society known to have decided against vaccinating their children. According to experts these parents are putting others at risk from their potentially infected children. Interestingly, the pupils of private schools have been identified as one of the subsections because of the number of middle-class parents who decided against the vaccination programs in the 1990s.

Middle class, that’ll be the same income bracket that has the means to choose organic food for its higher nutritional content and absence of agrochemical poisons and genetically modified aspects. A social segment whose academic and media parameters are generally wider than the parameters set by the birdseed papers and TV media looked to for information by what Huxley would have called the Epsilons, and by Orwell, the proles.

Gypsies and travellers have also been identified as ‘reservoirs of the disease’.

That phrase, ‘reservoirs of the disease’, along with numerous others has at times made the researching for this post quite frustrating. In the last couple of days I’ve read around 200 current articles, papers and posts concerning measles and vaccinations. Prior to that has been an over two-decade interest in and study of human health, particularly in relation to the health industry (note the phrase).

Reading through government health industry statements and press releases, and media reports has angered me several times, even to the point of cursing the sly, manipulative deceiving and outright lying of various outlets and individuals, who very often appear to be working together to promote the pro-vaccination party line and denigrate any opposition. A gaggle of ‘experts’, ‘specialists’, ministers, coordinators, et cetera, ad nauseum have been trotted out to bleat the doctrine, measles is potentially fatal, vaccinate now. Parents, those who it is hinted at are responsible, along with Dr Wakefield who instigated the MMR mistrust, for this ‘epidemic’, are reassured that nobody judges them for the decision they made back then, they had just based their decision on a, as the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport called it, ‘piece of extremely bad science’, but now they had to vaccinate for everybody’s benefit.

Now even before the BBC reported the collapse of Building Seven of the World Trade Centre before it fell down, I’ve known not to trust anything that comes out of its mouth.

One of the experts trotted out by the BBC was Dr Paul Offit, variously described as a US-based measles expert, vaccine specialist and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr Offit is a fairly well known and frequent commentator in favour of vaccinations who dismisses many vaccine risks and promotes vaccine mandates. He is currently advocating American-style mandatory vaccinations in Britain.

Vaccine entrepreneur is another way Paul Offit has been described. In fact, he’s also known as Dr Paul “For Proft” Ofﬁt. What the BBC doesn’t tell us is that their measles expert Offit has already made millions of dollars profit from his ties to vaccines and the measles MMR vaccine maker Merck. Counting Offit’s Millions: More on How Merck’s Rotateq Vaccine Made Paul Offit Wealthy is an update to an earlier investigative research piece that revealed details of Offit’s ‘conflicts of interest’, a cliché too moderate to describe the shady goings-on.

“Offit, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, earned millions of dollars as part of a $182m sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck RotaTeq vaccine. The amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million. Offit has refused to say how much he made from the vaccine.

The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the American CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the “market” for rotavirus vaccine – effectively, to vote himself rich.”

Coincidentally, the Department of Health has just successfully created a £25m market for a rotavirus vaccine in Britain, to be used on babies within weeks of them being born. It was reported last November that the government hopes to roll out GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) new Rotarix vaccine program. Rotovirus is not known to cause deaths in British infants but to cause sickness and diarrhoea. From this September GSK’s Rotarix vaccine is to be given to 840,000 babies every year in Britain, which will cost around £25m. The Department of Health claim they “believe” it will save the NHS £20million.

But what the BBC did not report in their current measles stories is that Dr Offit, in his position of authority on the American Advisory Commitee on Immunization Practices, voted in 1998 for drug manufacturer Wyeth’s ‘Rotashield’ rotavirus vaccine to be approved to be given to babies. Just a year after the approval of Rotashield, the vaccine was linked to an increased risk of a serious bowel complication called intussusception. It was quickly taken off the market.

Dr Paul “For Profit” Offit was one of the members who voted yes three times to introduce this Rotashield vaccine (despite it not having FDA approval) and then abstained from the vote to suspend the use of the Rotashield vaccine despite the links to serious complications for babies.

An American government report, “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making”, was critical of the decision to introduce this vaccine in the first place “as it had not even been approved by the FDA” and noted that “It is clear that the VRBPAC and the ACIP (the American body that approves vaccines) are dominated by individuals with close working relationships with the manufacturers of vaccines”. It went on to say, “The end result was that a product was placed on the market that had to be withdrawn within one year because it was injuring the children it was meant to protect.”

Because of Offit’s and others’ votes to introduce Rotashield, this helped other rotavirus vaccines to be approved for use in America, one of which was GSK’s Rotarix. This was suspended from the market when it was found to be contaminated with pig virus DNA. The American Food and Drug Agency found Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine, from which Offit had made considerable profit, was also contaminated.

The FDA stated when they announced the reinstatement of the Rotarix vaccine that they would continue to monitor both vaccines for continued problems with contamination”

Did MPs or the BBC do their homework on the rotavirus vaccines being monitored by the FDA in America? Did the Department of Health read the latest update on Glaxo’s Rotarix announced by the FDA on 12Th September 2012, issued not long before the DoH announced the rollout of the Rotarix vaccine in Britain from this September? Because the FDA concluded from a GlaxoSmithKline Rotarix study in Mexico that, “as expected, because of the routine use of Rotarix in Mexico, most (698) of the 750 babies studied who developed intussusception had been vaccinated with 1 or 2 doses of Rotarix.” Intussusception is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when the intestine gets blocked or twisted.

Despite the possible link to babies developing serious health problems and contamination of the major rotavirus vaccines the Department of Health has just approved Rotarix to be given to 840,000 British babies every year in Britain, with the vaccination programme due to be promoted by doctors in Britain within the next few months.

What do the FDA now recommend regarding GSK’s Rotarix vaccine on the back of the results of the Mexican study?

“Parents should closely watch their infants for signs of intussusception, especially within the first 7 days after vaccination with Rotarix. These include, stomach pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, blood in the stool or change in bowel movements. It is important to contact the child’s healthcare provider if the child has any of these signs at any time after vaccination, even if it has been several weeks since the last dose of vaccine.”

With the addition of Rotarix vaccine from this September, babies and children in Britain will now subjected to ten jabs and two oral doses of vaccine drops before the age of five with Department of Health claims that this is to protect them against 11 different diseases.

Should we consider this man, widely known as Dr. Paul “For Profit” Offit, to be an “expert” in vaccine safety when he champions contaminated vaccines and abstains from voting to remove a vaccine linked to a life threatening condition?

Should we trust Offit’s claims on the BBC that MMR vaccines should be made compulsory, especially when he has consulted for the MMR vaccine manufacturer Merck and has personally made considerable profit from Merck and vaccines? In fact, in light of the facts around Dr Offit’s ‘conflict of interest’, shouldn’t the financial connections of other ‘experts’, ‘leading doctors’, ‘specialists’ and ministers be taken into account when reviewing what they say on the issue?

But what of Dr Wakefield, author of the paper said to have been responsible for parents in the 90s deciding against the vaccines?

Contrary to the impression cultivated by the media, Dr Wakefield is a vaccine advocate, not a critic. The conclusion of his research, which included a study of a number of autistic children, was that there was sufficient evidence to show that the triple vaccine played a causative role in the development of autism of those studied, and recommended that the shots be administered singly with 12 month intervals between.

One country that has eliminated the MMR vaccine in favour of three separate doses is Japan.

A slightly less obvious impression given by the media in their targeting of Dr Wakefield is that his was and is the only research to show a link between vaccines and autism. Well, happily for those of you that really are seeking to make an informed choice, I can tell you the Wakefield research isn’t the only research. Not by a long shot. Numerous scientists from around the globe have presented credible peer-reviewed research studies that indicate a direct link between the exposure to adjuvants and additives like aluminium and mercury, both widely known neurotoxins that have damaging effects on the brain and nervous system. Links are provided below for data sources

Despite the extent of the scientific research that proves a link between vaccines and a long list of induced damage, Department of Health mouthpieces still come out and make statements such as, ‘Every time there’s a health scare, parents withdraw their children from vaccination. But there is no evidence to show that the MMR jab is linked to autism and bowel disorders.’

However, thousands of families (between 2,000 and 5,000, the numbers vary between sources) have had enough evidence to have taken legal action claiming their children have been damaged by the MMR jab. About half believe it has triggered autism in their toddlers even though the Government has ruled out any link. Back in 2008, the US Court of Federal Claims also admitted that vaccines can cause autism. A young girl, whose identity was sealed for the family’s protection, was awarded compensation after a series of vaccines caused her to develop severe autism symptoms, including loss of language skills, no response to verbal direction, and no eye contact, among other things.

A year prior, a young boy named Bailey was also awarded compensation after suffering a seizure and developing Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following vaccination with MMR. Bailey’s family was eventually awarded compensation for the boy’s injuries, which the court reluctantly admitted were caused by the vaccine.

In 2008 an Italian court found that “there was a reasonable scientific probability that the MMR jab had triggered in Valantino Bocca an autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay”, and awarded Valentino’s parents compensation, to be paid by the Italian ministry of health. Valentino, developing normally, was given the shot at 14 months and started to suffer from diarrhoea, lost interest in food and within a few days lost the ability to use his spoon. Worse was soon to come when he began to be restless at night, screaming in pain for hours. It was later found that he was suffering from a painful bowel condition that is common in autistic children. With an adjusted diet of no wheat or milk, he was able to sleep but the autism symptoms continued, and even at the age of nine, he still does not speak.

Other recent court rulings against the MMR include a £90,000 payout for brain damage to a boy called Robert Fletcher, and a $1.5 million payout for Hannah Poling who received MMR and six other vaccinations in one day and then developed autism.

So, a large number of scientists and doctors have produced peer-reviewed research that demonstrates links between vaccines and a list of induced damages, courts are awarding compensation to the victims based on evidence that proves a link, but still the media promotes the mantra, ‘measles are deadly, vaccines are safe’.

Doing the research this time round, I was struck with the similarity to another piece I’d written that was evident even in the research stage. The same pattern, the same Modus Operandi, the same players, only back then the bogeyman was Swine Flu. I think the fact that I wrote an article on it, but also the fact that it wasn’t that long ago has made the parallels easier to see.

More often than not the criminal events conducted today copy a template of criminal events of the past, following an ‘if it worked before, it’ll work again’ mentality. An aspect of criminal investigations is the search for a modus operandi (MO), a particular way of working, which can act as a signature and reveal, if not specific agencies, a particular method that points to specific agency.

Everything You Wanted To Know About Swine Flu, But Didn’t Know You Should Ask was going to be called Those Who Forget History II, The Swine Flu Hullabaloo. Among other things it discusses the parallels between the ‘epidemic’ in the 1970s and the hype at the time, and clearly shows the recurring MOs and patterns mentioned. The article also links to one of the most comprehensive books on the subject of Swine Flu and the vaccination industry. The 1997 book Swine Flu Exposé by Eleanora McBean. Ph.D..N.D. (readable online) needs to be read by everyone. As McBean says, it’s about time a large and comprehensive book of the long concealed facts about vaccination is brought forth. This is the largest and most informative book on the subject ever written in America. It contains data collected from medical records, army reports, and startling findings from researchers all over the world. The book is intended to help combat the disastrous effects of vaccine promoters and their deceptive propaganda.

Another excellent insider’s view on how the health industry really functions in relation to immoral marketing, corruption and bribery, is Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About. Kevin Trudeau, an industry insider takes the lid off the American health service to expose very dodgy dealings that are replicated internationally. Fundamentally, it’s all about the money.

Humans are intrinsically healthy and tend to remain so if they are given nutritious, non-GMO foods, fresh air, and clean water. We have extremely effective protective barriers against infectious diseases, including our skin and immune system.

Knowing that these facts are true for all members of the human species, how did we come to embrace the idea that injecting solutions of chemically-treated, inactivated viruses, parts of bacteria, traces of animal tissue and heavy metals was a reasonable strategy for keeping human beings, babies, children and adults healthy?

I’ll tell you how. Marketing. But don’t take my word for it. The publications linked to above and the links below to sources of information provide the data you need if you want to know the truth about the health industry and/or the pharmaceutical industry. Industries both, one being effectively a subsidiary of the other, or its retail outlet. In fact, Big Pharma has potentially the biggest sales department in the world, using as it does international medical bodies like the World Health Organisation, national bodies like the Centre for Disease Control, the Federal Drug Agency, their counterpart health and drug authorities in most other countries, doctors, etc as marketing and promotion departments and sales personnel.

Seeing the collusion, corruption and bare-faced manipulation by so many supposedly independent entities, more than one observer has described this latest scare as a Psychological Operation or PsyOp. Using such language in a context like this invariably opens one up to the charge of conspiracy theorist. A PsyOp then, for those of you that missed that class, has been described by an ex-military veteran in the field as,

‘the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behaviour … to create in target groups behaviour, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives… disseminated by face-to-face communication, television, radio or loudspeaker, newspapers, books, magazines and/or posters’.

The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) test is the most widely taken academic qualification exam among 14- to 16-year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The test questions are designed by the United Kingdom’s Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA).

Question 5 on the Science portion of the January 2008 test concerned the 1998 study that first raised concerns between the MMR vaccine and autism. In that study, published in the The Lancet, Andrew Wakefield and colleagues examined

12 autistic children after their parents raised concern that their conditions might have been caused by the MMR shot. Although the study did not find any causal relationship between the vaccine and autism, the authors concluded there was enough concern to recommend that parents instead give their children individual vaccines for each of the three diseases, spaced a year apart.

The GCSE test question was split into two parts. In the first part, students were asked to explain how the MMR vaccine functions to protect children from the three diseases. The second part briefly described Wakefield’s study, concluding by saying, “Dr Wakefield’s research was being funded through solicitors for the twelve children. The lawyers wanted evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers.”

The students were then asked, “(i) Was Dr Wakefield’s report based on reliable scientific evidence? … (ii) Might Dr Wakefield’s report have been biased?”

Students were given points for part (i) only if they criticized the study for having a small sample size and for relying on parents’ anecdotal reports as evidence. They were given points for part (ii) only if they agreed that Wakefield might have been biased by being paid by parents/lawyers.

Wakefield accused the test writers of making false claims about him and his research.

Back to vaccines. Vaccines have several components:

Micro-organisms, either bacteria or viruses, thought to be causing certain infectious diseases and which the vaccine is supposed to prevent. These are whole-cell proteins or just the broken-cell protein envelopes, and are called antigens.

Chemical substances which are supposed to enhance the immune response to the vaccine, called adjuvants

Chemical substances which act as preservatives and tissue fixatives, which are supposed to halt any further chemical reactions and putrefaction (decomposition or multiplication) of the live or attenuated (or killed) biological constituents of the vaccine.

If a “dirty bomb” exposed a large segment of US citizens simultaneously to Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenza B, three strains of polio viruses, 3 strains of influenza viruses, measles, mumps, and rubella viruses, the chickenpox virus, and 7 strains of Streptococcus bacteria, we would declare a national emergency. We would call it an “extreme act of BIOTERRORISM”. The public outcry would be immense and our government would act accordingly.

And yet, those are the very organisms that we inject through vaccines into our babies and our small children, with immature, underdeveloped immune systems. Many are given all at the same time. But instead of bioterrorism, we call it “protection.” Reflect a moment on that irony. (Sherri J. Tenpenny)

Do an Internet search on the chemicals listed above, if you want to shock yourself and really test your faith in the medical industry. Tween 80, for instance, is a chemical compound used in formulating the pesticide DDT.

Tween 80 can:

* Be used in pharmaceuticals to deliver nano-particles to the brain because they cross or disrupt the Blood Brain Barrier – which protects the brain.

* Suppress the immune system

* Promote epileptic seizures in rats

* Accelerate the development of female organs in rats

* Trigger cell death or ‘suicide’ called apoptosis

* Cause cancer in rats at the injection site

* Damage and promote intestinal damage in rats

* Cause bleeding disorders, kidney failure, liver failure, and death in infants who received a vitamin E product combined with Tween 80

* Possibly promote viral or bacterial infections

* Break down Red Blood Cells

* Cause damage to the heart when injected into rats

Tween 80 can be found in

* DtaP (Infanrix, Tripedia)

* DtaP-HebB-IPV (Pediarix)

* DtaP-Hib (TriHIBit)

* Human Papillomavirus (Gardasil)

* Influenza (Fluarix)

* Rotavirus (RotaTeq)

* Tdap (Adacel, Boostrix)

And then there’s the vaccination concept itself. The Government’s chief scientific adviser would have shown more medical understanding and professional integrity had he more fittingly described the concept itself as the ‘piece of extremely bad science. The subject can’t be summarised or paraphrased, so those who want to further their understanding of the concept and history of vaccinations will find links below that are good places to begin your own research, and there’s plenty of it to trawl through.

For now, I leave you with the wisdom of one Dr Richard Moskowitz who explains in plain terms Genuine Immunity vs Vaccine Immunity, an extract from his book Dissent in Medicine. He says,

Childhood illnesses like measles, mumps and chicken pox produce symptoms which reflect the efforts of the immune system to clear the virus from the blood, which it does by sending it out exactly the same way it came in. When a child recovers from measles, you have true immunity. That child will never, never again get the measles no matter how many epidemics he is exposed to. Furthermore, he will respond vigorously and dramatically to whatever infectious agents he is exposed to. The side benefit of that disease is a nonspecific immunity that charges or primes his immune system so that it can better respond to the subsequent challenges that it is going to meet in the future.

Now, by contrast, when you take an artificially attenuated measles vaccine and introduce it directly into the blood and bypass the portal of entry, there is no period of sensitization of the portal of entry tissues. There is no silent period of incubation in the lymph nodes. Furthermore, the virus itself has been artificially weakened in such a way that there is no generalized inflammatory response. By tricking the body in this way, we have done what the entire evolution of the immune system seems to be designed to prevent. We have placed the virus directly and immediately into the blood and given it free and immediate access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

The result of this, indeed, is the production of circulating antibodies, which can be measured in the blood. But that antibody response occurs purely as an isolated technical feat, without any generalized inflammatory response or any noticeable improvement in the general health of the organism. Quite the contrary, in fact. I believe that the price we pay for those antibodies is the persistence of virus elements in the blood for long periods of time, perhaps permanently, which in turn presupposes a systematic weakening of our ability to mount an effective response not only to measles but also to other infections. So far from producing a genuine immunity, the vaccine may act by interfering with or suppressing the immune response as a whole in much the same way as radiation and chemotherapy, corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs do.

Chronic long-term persistence of viruses and other proteins within cells of the immune system produce chronic disease. We know that live viruses are capable of surviving or remaining latent within host cells for years without continually provoking acute disease. They do this by attaching their own genetic material to the cell, and replicate along with the cell. That allows the host cell to continue its normal functioning but continuing to synthesize the viral protein.

Latent viruses produce various kinds of diseases. Because the virus is now permanently incorporated within the genetic material of the cell, the only appropriate immunological response is to make antibodies against the cell, no longer against the virus. So, immunizations promote certain types of chronic diseases. And far from providing a genuine immunity, the vaccines are actually a form of immunosuppression.

Our Task

A human being is a part of a whole, called by us “Universe”. A part
limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feelings as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us… Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison…
– Albert Einstein

There Are No Limits

In the province of the mind, what is believed to be true is true, or
becomes true, within limits to be found experimentally and
experientially. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind, there are no limits.
– John C Lilly, MD